February 14, 2006
-- by Dave Johnson
If the hospital equipment is accurate, however, then someone using a shotgun other than a Perazzi Brescia 28-gauge fired the shot that wounded Harry Whittington.Note - almost certainly a mistake in reporting the size of the pellet.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
This is the same hospital that didn't contact local law enforcement when they got a patient admitted with a gunshot wound, right?
Incidentally, the White House has been duplicitous in claiming that the accident was Whittington's fault for not announcing his presence when Cheney turned back and shot, following the quail's flight path. They sight the rules of hunting, but they do so selectively. It's true that a hunter who is not part of an advancing formation is supposed to announce his presence. But Whittington was part of the formation initially, and was catching up, so Cheney was responsible for knowing that Whittington was back there, whether he was 10 yards or a thousand yards back.(And given's the fact that they were traversing brush it's hard to believe that anyone out there was moving so fast that they would've moved past shotgun blast range, especially Cheney with his faulty ticker.)
It's a little like running a red light and putting your victim in the ER and saying it was the other motorist's fault because while his light may have been green, he had no business speeding through it at above the posted speed limit.
Posted by: Jonathan Versen("Hugo Zoom") at February 14, 2006 9:58 PM
Posted by: Nate at February 15, 2006 4:57 AM
Well, that explains why the reporter was saying "buck shot" while the written material on the screen was saying "bird shot." So they were hunting deer and not quail? If so, why lie about it? A shotgun blast in the chest is serious and potentially lethal, regardless. Ultimately, trying to make the accident sound less serious than it was only backfires on the administration. The truth, whatever it is, is out there.
Accidents do happen, especially when people are careless about guns. Since I'm one of those fuzzy-headed pie in the sky liberals who still believes that people are still innocent until proven guilty, I'd like to know what the facts are, not just the administration's spin on what happened before I conclude that Cheney got in a snit and deliberately shot his hunting buddy. Or that Cheney is liable because he was drunk or otherwise incapacitated. But the poor victim's in intensive care while the administration jokes about wearing orange ties so Cheney won't shoot them, too. So where's all that compassionate conservatism? Looks like it doesn't apply to humans, not even close friends.
Posted by: MJ at February 15, 2006 5:55 AM
Media Feeding Frenzy: With all that's going on in the world, it's truly pathetic how such a media feeding frenzy has developed over Vice President Cheney accidentally shooting a hunting buddy. From NBC's David Gregory having a meltdown about how dare the White House not contact him first and immediately regarding the shooting......to a Washington Post reporter demonstrating how that publication and anybody that writes for it are anything BUT objective.
Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank turned up on an MSNBC show in hunter's garb, mocking the Vice President.
Now don't get me wrong, it's newsworthy and is after all an incident involving the Vice President of the United States. It's great fodder for the late night talk shows. But you tell me how a quail hunt and accidental shooting is more important than Al Gore going to Saudi Arabia and bad-mouthing the USA?
Posted by: Sickofspin at February 15, 2006 6:53 AM
But you tell me how a quail hunt and accidental shooting is more important than Al Gore going to Saudi Arabia and bad-mouthing the USA?
For one thing, the shooting actually happened. Al Gore has never "bad-mouthed" the USA. An actual event is always more important than a piece of contrived right-wing crap.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2006 9:14 AM
Gore was bad-mouthing Bush. Bush is not the USA, and he is not the Second Coming of the Son of God.
As for Cheney, maybe if they had reported the incident, and not tried to blame the victim...
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 15, 2006 10:10 AM
The notion that the accident HAD to be reported at all is absurd. The White House press is just pissed because a small town newspaper got the scoop on them.
Posted by: Sickofspin at February 15, 2006 2:53 PM
"The notion that the accident HAD to be reported at all is absurd."
Aside from all the laws involved, if Cheney doesn't like accountability to the public, maybe he should find a job that doesn't REQUIRE it.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 15, 2006 4:39 PM
Oh PLEASE show me the Texas law that REQUIRES the reporting of a hunting accident such as what occurred!
The fact is the incident was reported, reported to local authority and a local paper. On the media side of things, the AP picked it up from there.
Show me the laws you claim exists on reporting such incidences. Both from a hunting/shooting standpoint, and from a media standpoint. I say you're full of it.
Posted by: Sickofspin at February 15, 2006 7:28 PM
Um, "Sickofspin", by the very nature of the Vice-President's JOB, he is accountable to the public on ANY MATTER. It doesn't really matter what "local laws" may or may not require, but the VP is in a position where he should do MORE than the law "requires".
Posted by: JosephW at February 15, 2006 8:02 PM
Hey, didn't Clinton fire a shot in the Oval Office and fail to report it for about six months?
Posted by: Sickofspin at February 15, 2006 8:34 PM
The incident was reported on, both to legal authority and to local press. There were no violations in reporting. Get over it. You wish to make something out of nothing.
Posted by: Sickofspin at February 15, 2006 8:36 PM
Someone shoots someone in the face with a shotgun, and you think there's no law that says it has to be reported?
How about the beer? How about the cocktail the host says he had later? Is THAT why the Secret Service wouldn't allow the local sherrif to see Cheney, and flew him back to Washington?
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 15, 2006 8:44 PM
28 guage, 7 1/2 shot load. Pellets weigh 1/345th of an oz. Shell is smaller then your index finger, containg appox 270 pellets. Doctor's remove 200 or so pellets from victim and leave a dozen or so where they are. Victim shot on right side, has pellet lodged in his heart(left side), causing a mild heart attack. This man was no more like 3 yards away, not 30. The story here is the simple fact that the VP and everyone else is lying about the incident. Can you smell cover up??
Posted by: mikefromtexas at February 16, 2006 12:57 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)